I might hit on influence to be the end result of musical formula.
Especially in today’s recorded mediums. There were no recordings before electricity except the written notation and the attention span and fast paced lifestyle were nonexistent.
So our cute songs that influenced our emotions and culture had experimental written all over itself.
5 second intros,
Verse Chorus Bridge pattern,
Outro under 3 minutes…
Seems like our measure of influence was indeed being measured out for us!
I looked at influence a bit different given these circumstances. You can hear the differences in SunRecords from the 50s, ABC Dunhill from the 70s, Columbia from the 60s, etc. One can be influenced by that entired boardroom decision process and fall in love with it!
No wonder I loved the songs by producers like Steve Barri, Todd Rundgren, or the big hits by Herb Alpert, Henry Mancini, Burt Bacharach.
I heard a something that flipped on a switch inside. Like Pavlov’s dog. I heard it, aware of it’s presence, and trying to harness it and ride it home.
I think it’s more the space between the notes. The analog tape back wall, the digital resolution clarity or the wanting to live inside the reverb tail.
Am I in love with music or is it sound and vibration that I seek?
Vibration is in the nature of the Universe. Everything vibrates on some level, and usually to one or more frequency resonances. So if you assume we humans were formed from stardust, or made from clay, then vibration is “in our bones” you might say.
“If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.” – Nikola Tesla
Music probably originated with human organization and vocalization, and evolved with ‘culture’. Forms of creative expression.
That’s kind of what I meant by “organization”, in that humans create ‘forms’ of things, and generations tend to adopt and adapt those forms through tradition and innovation. Perhaps it started with beating sticks on logs, to tribal drums and primitive flutes, to later more ‘advanced’ rhythms and melodies made into ‘songs’ which were then learned and repeated in social groups. A formula is developed, and then repeated for some period of time until the formula changes - or is intentionally changed!
The interplay of music and culture is something I mentioned before, and probably in both directions. I might even argue that this went hand in hand with technological inventions and innovations - stone and bone tools led to musical instruments, languages led to vocalizations and singing, ‘civilization’ like Greek theatre drama (comedy/tragedy) led to “call and response” and “chorus” (precursor to “choir”).
So yes, the musical experimentation was probably linked to the other forms of experimentation in all walks of life.
The modern era of music has accelerated the “evolution” of music drastically. Again, many thanks to the innovation of music and electronic (and synthesis) technologies, in association with other technological innovations. Music probably started off resonating with both social group harmony (celebrations) and declarations of war. Communicating intentions. Later they became associated with kings and royalty and commemorating events. Court minstrels etc. With the rise of Classical music, composers were endowed with royal appointments and sponsorship’s to push the envelope of public perception and royal prestige.
Post-royalty, in America at least, the simply life of the pioneer prairie led to the “family band” playing on the front porch and at festivals - just for fun and enjoyment. There was no hyper-focus on pitch and musicianship like today, though I’m sure many achieved commendable performance standards. Once the recording medium and broadcast radio were developed, the economic benefits (and profits) of the “music business” quickly ensued. At that point, large public appeal and commercial (business) sponsorship’s became the driving factors. Which then led to the “boardroom decision process” you spoke of.
I like the Pavlov’s Dog analogy, since humans - despite our more refined potentials - are impacted by basic “stimulus/response” just like any animal or living thing. “Monkey see, monkey do” is a basic learning format. Hearing “Smoke on the Water” for the first time, picking up a guitar and slamming out those chords, leads to a feeling of “Look ma, I’m a Rock Star.”
To extrapolate further: the function/purpose of “artistic influences” might be elevated to “Monkey see, monkey do, monkey do better.”
I guess we’re “dancing with words” in a philosophical sense. I’ll try to explain further. Maybe this example will help. I once knew another guitarist who told me his very specific vision for using musical influences from other (famous) guitar players. He picked his 5 favorite guitarists for their style, and then he deliberately set out to emulate and understand their styles. Maybe copying at first, but with the intent to incorporate some of their style and technique into his playing. And from what I could tell he was quite successful with that. I can’t remember all of his picks, but I remember George Lynch and probably Jake E. Lee, and I think Steve Vai also.
To me, this describes his purpose (vision/intention/objective/goal) with consciously using musical influences. The purpose was to develop his own style, with the help of influential ‘mentors’.
The function I would describe as the actual songs and riffs he studied (both rhythm and lead) on a daily rehearsal practice that tangibly affected his playing style, if that makes sense. Let’s say he picked one song over another to study, from a particular artist … the riffs and chops might come out slightly different (function) but if he’s happy with the results of incorporating that artists’ style then he achieved his goal (purpose).
I have always thought that EVH and Angus Young were my main guitar influences, but yet I didn’t intentionally approach with as much thoroughness and vigor as he did, probably. So I had a similar purpose, but I would guess my function aspect falls a bit short as I didn’t employ the same diligence with deep 360* study and analysis. From Eddie I did learn finger-tapping and using odd and extreme finger bends on some notes, and from Angus I learned finger-plucking broken chords (i.e. “For Those About To Rock”) as an interesting effect. I learned more, but those are the big takeaways, and yet I don’t feel those are fully integrated as a style, or part of my style. More like ‘tricks’?
I think this all begs the question as to whether a musician has an “innate” style that just needs to be developed … or whether the developed style is an accumulation of the influences, or both (nature vs. nuture). We had a discussion here a long time ago about “talent”, whether that’s nature or nurture, or both. Are you born with it? Or does it only really develop from hard work and persistence?
I would also point out that there are likely both “conscious” and “unconscious” (or subconscious) forces at work, where we pick up some things on a subliminal level which just naturally become part of our playing. Whereas some things are consciously studied with the ‘purpose’ I described above. So the ‘function’ of influences is probably always there for a musician, to some degree, but having a ‘purpose’ is more of a long-term goal and vision or ideal.
Just to touch on “innate style” again, some things are naturally driven by our physiology and perhaps personality characteristics. Guitarists with large fat fingers will probably develop a different playing style than someone with long slim bony fingers (that’s me ).
Also, I have always tended to play spontaneously and intuitively - which lacks some discipline but is load of fun. I’d guess that’s due to an aspect of my personality.
What you’re describing is your friend practicing purposefully but not necessarily as his purpose in life.
How is your pupose in this universe with all its glorious attributes only want someone to steal Jimmy Page licks? Hmm.
Doesn’t sound too ideal of a gig imo.
Anyway, I myself and me are kinda clueless as to what my selfish purpose might be.
If there is a guiding light in the universe, then I have yet to discover my purpose within or under that umbrella of higher purposes.
Correct. I’m using “purpose” as a multi-functional word and paradigm for any and all multiple endeavors in life. I don’t think “purpose in life” is just one thing, despite the psycho-babble of pop-psychology, self-help books, and hand waving flamboyant life coaches.
Life tends to be multi-faceted and compartmentalized when we really stop to examine it. So if we wear “many hats”, then we may have a “purpose” that directs each one of our hats. For a professional (or aspiring professional) musician, that purpose might be a career goal that brings entertainment and joy to people, that also impacts other areas of life like reputation and financial. Any other career could have it’s own purpose, in terms of reaching or helping people, or inventing new technologies to benefit humanity, etc. Being a parent can have a purpose, and indeed should IMO. To guide your children to competent and fulfilling lives can be a great purpose. One of many, per above.
I guess it’s natural for a sense of purpose to initially be selfish (i.e. the most famous bank robber in history ), but I do believe that some people either define or find a broader purpose for bringing their gift to humanity. For most of us that it may not be easy, and may seem like a lofty challenge, but it doesn’t hurt to revisit that exercise from time to time and see what it might look like. And indeed, that purpose may change several times during a person’s life, potentially. Whether it’s a Mother Theresa, or an Eddie Van Halen, the people who dedicate themselves to a “mission” (even selfishly initially) can find that it’s their purpose and they are publicly recognized for having made a contribution.
As a live sound engineer, wasn’t it your purpose/mission to bring people the best live show that they and the band could experience? I’d argue that wasn’t your only purpose in life, but if your contribution brought some joy - or even escapist entertainment - to a crowd of music enthusiasts, I see that as having a purpose. If you had mentors as a live sound engineer, then they were your Jimmy Page in effect. Nothing wrong with that. We all learn from someone.
).
I’d guess that’s due to an aspect of my personality.
), but I do believe that some people either define or find a broader purpose for bringing their gift to humanity. For most of us that it may not be easy, and may seem like a lofty challenge, but it doesn’t hurt to revisit that exercise from time to time and see what it might look like. And indeed, that purpose may change several times during a person’s life, potentially. Whether it’s a Mother Theresa, or an Eddie Van Halen, the people who dedicate themselves to a “mission” (even selfishly initially) can find that it’s their purpose and they are publicly recognized for having made a contribution.